Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion.

Isn't it just saying we're made of the same stuff that's "out there"?

It is saying that. Also, while it is talking about external and internal it is not really showing a distinction between them....in fact it seems to be saying that there is no distinction between them at least in regards to elements.....

I asked before about with reference to what is something internal or external and so far the answers give did not answer this question. The answers given did give views on what kinds of things are external and what kinds of things are internal but this is not the same thing as explaining with reference to what. For example if I had a jar of pickles and asked with reference to what is there internal and external one might answer that the world is external and pickles are internal....but this would not tell with reference to what......the best answer being with respect to the jar there is internal and external. Of course then there is the problem as to whether the glass of the jar is internal to the jar or external to the jar but that's another story.

So, I am still asking with respect to what is there internal and external back in those posts which brought up the issue of internal and external.chownah

Obviously, you make a statement and it is empty of substance, which is, apparently, your idea of the perfect Buddhist exposition. Sorry to have expected otherwise. Carry on.

It wasn't empty of substance according to how I was able to read it, so this is confusing (empty of a self, sure... is this what you mean?). As far as I could tell, the confusion was over the use of the phrase 'conventional language' - as though any language could be otherwise! But it seemed to me that the point was that, given a conventional distinction, it's possible to see it as conventional for oneself, and that hanging anything important on such a convention isn't going to make much hay.

I'm easily mistaken.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Obviously, you make a statement and it is empty of substance, which is, apparently, your idea of the perfect Buddhist exposition. Sorry to have expected otherwise. Carry on.

It wasn't empty of substance according ot how I was able to read it, so this is confusing. As far as I could tell, the confusion was over the use of the phrase 'conventional language' - as though any language could be otherwise! Haha.

"as though any language could be otherwise" That would be my point, even SN IV 15; however, the characterization of the "concept[s] of internal and external is [are] arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion . . . that encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view" seriously misses the point of the Buddha's use of language in the suttas as a basis for practice.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

I was thinking about this thread and in particular Thich Nhat Hanh's interbeing and why it is quite controversial in both Theravada and Mahayana circles.

I think it's because it is less about dependent origination and more about the Huayen teachings of mutual interpenetration, the interfusion of the relative and the ultimate and the way of seeing everything in an all-encompassing way. Maybe this is the place to look for this topic of interconnectedness?

Look to nature and the answer is very clear.....just like a tree, there are many branches, but if you zoom out, you will see that these branches are linked together at the source where the tree base is, the main trunk. This trunk rises from the ground when once was only a small seed.Now, are branches not part of the tree?.....and is a tree not without branches?.....is the tree not the combinations of branches, tree trunk and the associated leaves?

The only real reason where there are sub-divisions or non inter-connectedness is because of our very own " discrimination " to cling to these smaller parts.....the true source is the source of the deluded "I".

Hence, there is no difference between you/others.....no male/female.....no such and such a different country.....here, nothing is discriminate.....it is beyond words and beyond "what we see".

chownah wrote:So, I am still asking with respect to what is there internal and external back in those posts which brought up the issue of internal and external.chownah

The distinction between internal and external is also made in the Satipatthana Sutta, where I understand to mean the distinction between oneself and other people - so it seems to be internal and external in reference to ourselves ( nama-rupa ). I'm not sure an ontological definition is appropriate here, but you could say it's the physical interface between internal and external - internal would include the sense organs.

IMO it's more useful to look at this distinction experientially, in terms of where our attention is directed - internally or externally.

Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. .........The stars died so that you could be here today.

This from P.A Payutto's "Dependent Origination. The Buddhist Law of Conditionality"

"All facets of the natural order -- the physical world and the human world, the world of conditions (dhamma) and the world of actions (kamma), the material world and the mental world -- are connected and interrelated, they cannot be separated. Disorder and aberration in one sector will affect other sectors. If we want to live in peace, we must learn how to live in harmony with all spheres of the natural environment, both the internal and the external, the individual and the social, the physical and the mental, the material and the immaterial.To create true happiness it is of utmost importance that we not only reflect on the interrelationship of all things in the natural order, but also see ourselves clearly as one system of causal relationships within that natural order, becoming aware first of the internal mental factors, then those in our life experiences, in society, and ultimately in the world around us. This is why, of all the systems of causal relationship based on the law "because there is this, that arises; when this ceases that ceases," the teachings of Buddhism begin with, and stress throughout, the factors involved in the creation of suffering in individual awareness -- "because there is ignorance, there are volitional formations." Once this system of causal relationship is understood on the inner level, we are then in a position to see the connections between these inner factors and the causal relationships in society and the natural environment. This is the approach adopted in this book".

P.A Payutto's "Dependent Origination. The Buddhist Law of Conditionality"

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

chownah wrote:So, I am still asking with respect to what is there internal and external back in those posts which brought up the issue of internal and external.chownah

The distinction between internal and external is also made in the Satipatthana Sutta, where I understand to mean the distinction between oneself and other people - so it seems to be internal and external in reference to ourselves ( nama-rupa ). I'm not sure an ontological definition is appropriate here, but you could say it's the physical interface between internal and external - internal would include the sense organs.

IMO it's more useful to look at this distinction experientially, in terms of where our attention is directed - internally or externally.

I do hope that you do not see my questions as a problem!

I tend to think that in the Satipatthana Sutta the use of internal and external very well may be referring to oneself and another person in that my view is that for example the body can be contemplated internally, externally, or both, or it's arising, or it's dissolution.....or.....by just being mindful that there is a body. Seems to me that this is a list of ways that people conventionally might perceive of body ( and perceiving another person's body is one of the possible conventions).....and that the last way (just being mindful that there is a body) shows that one does not need to put the body into a space related context or a process related concept but that being mindful just that there is a body with no other elaborations is adequate.......but of course many people are not able to conceive of body unless they have some context for it.

I like the six sense bases as the boundary......the Sattipathana Sutta talks about the six internal sense media and the six external sense media......I'll be thinking about this more.....

I agree the experiential context is the most important and that where attention is directed is too.....but to leave it at that doesn't really provide an answer......it could be that directing the attention toward the boundaries or interface of the perceived internallity/externality could help see things as they really are.......maybe not......

Anyway, since you seem to be of the view that there is an internality and an externality, how do you see that they are interconnected or are you of the view that they are not interconnected?chownah

chownah wrote:Anyway, since you seem to be of the view that there is an internality and an externality, how do you see that they are interconnected or are you of the view that they are not interconnected?chownah

An obvious interconnection is that without visible form there would be no visual consciousness or contact. So what we experience is the interaction of internal and external via the sense-bases.

chownah wrote:Anyway, since you seem to be of the view that there is an internality and an externality, how do you see that they are interconnected or are you of the view that they are not interconnected?chownah

An obvious interconnection is that without visible form there would be no visual consciousness or contact. So what we experience is the interaction of internal and external via the sense-bases.

Great! Now that we are back on topic, how do you see the sixth sense base (mind and mental objects) as being internal and external? For me this in the difficult one.chownah

chownah wrote:Anyway, since you seem to be of the view that there is an internality and an externality, how do you see that they are interconnected or are you of the view that they are not interconnected?chownah

An obvious interconnection is that without visible form there would be no visual consciousness or contact. So what we experience is the interaction of internal and external via the sense-bases.

Great! Now that we are back on topic, how do you see the sixth sense base (mind and mental objects) as being internal and external? For me this in the difficult one.chownah

I think of mind and mental objects as internal. And IMO there's a distinction between consciousness of mental objects like thoughts and feelings, and consciousness of sense-impressions via the other five sense bases.

Spiny Norman wrote:I think of mind and mental objects as internal. And IMO there's a distinction between consciousness of mental objects like thoughts and feelings, and consciousness of sense-impressions via the other five sense bases.

And the distinction is?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Spiny Norman wrote:An obvious interconnection is that without visible form there would be no visual consciousness or contact. So what we experience is the interaction of internal and external via the sense-bases.

Great! Now that we are back on topic, how do you see the sixth sense base (mind and mental objects) as being internal and external? For me this in the difficult one.chownah

I think of mind and mental objects as internal. And IMO there's a distinction between consciousness of mental objects like thoughts and feelings, and consciousness of sense-impressions via the other five sense bases.

I think that to view mind and mental objects as both being internal is widespread........but the Sattipathanna Sutta clearly mentions six internal and six external sense bases which seems to be saying that either the mind or the mental object should be viewed as external.......I've got a half baked idea that "mental object" and "The World" are one and the same thing.......this would make mental object external, or it would make The World internal, or it would tend to degrade the concept of internal/external........I guess........chownah

chownah wrote:the sixth sense base (mind and mental objects) as being internal and external?For me this in the difficult one.

Sense objects (including mind objects) are the external sense bases.Sense organs (including mind) are the internal sense bases.Internal and external refer to the process, not to the physical location.

Was that your question?

"An important term for meditative absorption is samadhi. We often translate that as concentration, but that can suggest a certain stiffness. Perhaps unification is a better rendition, as samadhi means to bring together. Deep samadhi isn't at all stiff. It's a process of letting go of other things and coming to a unified experience." - Bhikkhu Anālayo

mirco wrote:Sense objects (including mind objects) are the external sense bases.Sense organs (including mind) are the internal sense bases.Internal and external refer to the process, not to the physical location.

chownah wrote:micro, Your post is taking my question in a new direction. What process are you speaking of?

I am talking of the process of Dependent Origination. Human cognition:

4. ‘The six internal bases should be understood.’ So it was said.And with reference to what was this said?There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base.So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six internal bases should be understood.’This is the first set of six.

5. ‘The six external bases should be understood.’ So it was said.And with reference to what was this said?There are the form-base, the sound-base, the odour-base, the flavour-base, the tangible-base, and the mind-object-base.So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six external bases should be understood.’This is the second set of six.

9. ‘The six classes of craving should be understood.’ So it was said.And with reference to what was this said?...Dependent on mind and mind object, mind-consciousness arises.The meeting of the three is mind-contact;with mind-contact as condition there is mind-feeling;with mind-feeling as condition there is mind-craving.So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of craving should be understood.This is the sixth set of six.

"An important term for meditative absorption is samadhi. We often translate that as concentration, but that can suggest a certain stiffness. Perhaps unification is a better rendition, as samadhi means to bring together. Deep samadhi isn't at all stiff. It's a process of letting go of other things and coming to a unified experience." - Bhikkhu Anālayo